The Evangelical Tabloid

It seems that one of the consequences of the societal changes I referred to in my last post is that some aspects of the culture are taking on more of a tabloid nature. For a long time, there's been a noticeable decline on conservative political radio programs, on conservative political web sites, and in other parts of our culture that have usually been thought of as traditional to some extent. You can see differences in a lot of contexts. There's more of a personal nature to things, such as a tendency to get overly emotional about certain individuals and to be overly focused on topics that are of a less significant and more personal nature (e.g., responses to Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Hunter Biden, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez). Or if a famous comedian, athlete, etc. says something that seems favorable to political conservatism, Christianity, or some other part of the culture that's more traditional, what that famous person said will get a lot of attention, much more than it should. Some web sites have a section highlighting which posts are the most popular at the moment, and what's most popular often resembles a tabloid far more than it ought to. Posts are getting more sensationalist headlines, and the audiences seem to like it and frequently take the bait. There's been a problem for years with even conservative radio programs and web sites, for example, having inappropriate ads, and that's gotten worse with the passing of time. (And not just in sexual contexts.) That's probably largely because the audiences like those kinds of ads so much and are responding favorably to them. There's also a problem with inappropriate photographs accompanying articles. Material and practices that used to be more associated with tabloids have become more mainstream. The examples of this type of thing go on and on. It's not universal, and it's occurred to different degrees in different contexts, but you see it to some extent in many places.

That includes Evangelicalism. Because people have delegated too much of their work to other individuals (as part of the shortcuts referred to in my last post), it's become more significant when somebody like pastor So-And-So exhibits some kind of perceived weakness. Therefore, a controversy that pastor is involved in gets more attention. And there are other factors involved, like the enjoyment people get from following scandals. They treat it like watching a soap opera. They like gawking at trainwrecks. Even if they didn't like it, they have a tendency to follow the crowd, and the crowd is chasing after scandals. There's also the fact that people like going after easy targets. You aren't risking much, and it gives you an easy sense of moral superiority to look down on a person who's done something that's widely agreed to be inappropriate.

There are other factors involved. I'm just giving some examples. And to whatever extent I'm wrong about how these problems have gotten worse in recent years, the fact remains that they are problems that exist to whatever degree. My main point is that the problem exists to some extent. I'm not suggesting that it's as bad as it could possibly be. And I'm not denying that the problem is accompanied by other things that are good. But it is a problem, and it needs to be addressed.

John Crist

1. I'm very selective about what celebrity Christian scandals and apostasies I comment on. It's only noteworthy when people tumble from their pedestal because people put on the pedestal in the first place. 

2. I've only seen a few clips of his routines, but he's clearly a very gifted comedian. But there's never been any correlation between talent and virtue. 

3. Success corrupts some people by providing new temptations–as well as the opportunity to act on those temptations. They may have been decent people before they became famous, and their moral downfall is the result of success.

4. In other cases, they has a trail of misconduct before they become famous, yet that remained unreported so long as they were nobodies. But once them became public figures, that exposed them to public scrutiny, and their shady past caught up with them. Their ambition was their undoing. Had they lived and died in obscurity, they might never have been found out. 

5. I don't know if he's in legal jeopardy. Assuming he dodges imprisonment, his career is irreparably damaged. Of course, you always have fans who make excuses for their idol. 

6. It's lethal for an entertainer to become unpopular. Once his audience turns against him, he's cooked. I think that's what sunk Mel Gibson's career. Likewise, as Michael Jackson's image became ever weirder and more perverted, that burned into his popularity. 

If your constituency no longer likes you, if it can't separate the charming onstage image from the offstage scoundrel, then you're finished–unless that was your image all along. Kinda like Sinatra's tough-guy, mobster persona. 

7. A dilemma for Crist's comedy schtick is that much of it involves Babylon Bee-style spoofing foibles and follies in certain pockets of evangelicalism. Christians only find that funny if they think the comedian is one of us, on our side. That the satire good-natured ribbing rather than mean-spirited. 

If, however, they find out that the comedian is a creep, then the satirical judgmentalism leaves a sour aftertaste. It's like husband-and-wife comedy teams who make fun of each other onstage. That can be amusing so long as the audience believes the couple is truly in love offstage. But if it's known that their marriage is on the rocks, and the sniping asides aren't acting but a public spillover of their mutual detestation in real life, then that hits the wrong note. It's not funny anymore.

What did they know and when did they know it?

Regarding the SBC abuse scandal, I wonder about major players like Al Mohler. He rose through the ranks at rocket velocity. He's held top positions in the SBC for many years now. 

Did he have no inkling what was going on? Never heard rumors? Nothing through the grapevine? No victims or friends of victims ever confided in him?

When the Cardinal McCarrick scandal broke, people asked "What did they know and when did they know it?" How could some of his associates and superiors not know what he was up to? And it turns out that they did. The SBC needs to ask itself the same hard questions.

Perhaps some people did confide in Mohler, but no one who spoke to him was prepared to go on record.

Poisonous fruit of poisonous tree

Is it hypocritical for evangelicals to harp on Catholic scandals? Are we in these same boat? Are we shooting a hole in the bottom of our own boat?

1. It's vitally important that Christians not make what they oppose the standard of comparison. The fact that Catholicism is bad doesn't make me good. That's not a substitute for cultivating personal holiness. 

2. In making a case against Catholicism, I wouldn't lead with Catholic scandals. Generally, the way to disprove Catholicism is to point out lack of evidence for its claims as well as evidence contrary to its claims.

3. Obviously, there are Protestant scandals as well as Catholic scandals. The parallel holds in some respects but not in others. Protestant theology is generally separable from the medium. Denominations are just temporary vehicles. Protestant theology changes vehicles while the theology remains the same (although there's room for development in Protestant theology).

If a Protestant denomination becomes too morally or theologically compromised, we're free to abandon it, like a derelict ship. It served a limited purpose. Outlived its usefulness. 

In Catholicism, by contrast, at a certain level the message and medium are inseparable. One example is apostolic succession. Another example is the fact that there's no direct evidence for many Catholic dogmas. Their warrant depends on sheer church authority to promulgate dogma. They have no independent warrant. Rather, it's an argument from authority.

There's only one true church: the Roman Catholic church. Only one medium. So you can't detach the message from the medium. That's different from Protestant theology and ecclesiology. Protestant theology is portable. It can jump from one host to another. 

4. Although Protestant scandals don't falsify Protestant theology, if a Protestant institution is hopelessly adrift, irreversibly morally compromised, then that brings the institution into disrepute. It may not discredit the theology, but it discredits the sponsor. 

5. In addition, there's often a link between heresy and immorality. They feed on each other. Immorality pulls theology to the left while liberal theology invites immorality. Ethics track theology and vice versa. 

6. Rome partitions the holiness of "the Church" from the holiness of its members. "The Church" is holy in some abstract sense that has no connection to the priesthood or hierarchy. But is it meaningful to depersonalize holiness to such an extent, or is that a face-saving distinction? 

7. Rome claims that God is present in the Catholic church in a way that's not the case in Protestant denominations. But what's the discernible difference between God's presence and God's absence if God's special presence is compatible with so much immorality–compared to Protestant denominations? 

8. Catholic loyalists stand in the lot of a car dealership. They are surrounded by transportation. Yet they spend all their time trying to fix a lemon. Despite the religious competition, Catholic loyalists act as though they have no other options. 

Time to call the exterminator

One problem is that most folks who have the goods are Patterson are SBC/SWBTS employees, so they haven't been at liberty to divulge all the incriminating evidence. Those in the know are afraid to speak out because their jobs or employment prospects are on the line. It's like the Syndicate. His power protected him. Now that he's fallen from power, we'll see if more accusers come forward.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Kinda like getting Capone on tax evasion. Much more serious problems with Patterson than what got him booted, but it gets the job done. I don't really care what the "official" reasons were. Patterson is an extortionate bully. Good riddance!

No doubt "Progressive Christian/evangelical feminists" are bilking this particular allegation against Patterson as a pretext to advance their own social agenda. That's an unfortunate consequence of thugs who bring a legitimate principle into disrepute through flagrant abuse of power. Thugs like Patterson make it harder for good people to defend a legitimate principle. 

Patterson has given the "Progressive Christian/Evangelical feminists" an opening. They blame it on "the Patriarchy". Patterson's their current poster boy for "toxic masculinity". Sure, that's a non sequitur, but it makes it harder for the good guys to defend complementarianism with Patterson around. That's one more reason to call in the exterminator to clear the rats out of the attic.

Patterson apologists like Gagnon and Geisler are perpetuating the SBC culture of corruption that made these scandals possible in the first place. A microcosmic parallel to the clerical abuse scandal in Catholicism. 

Ironically, Patterson apologists as well as "Progressive Christian/evangelical feminist" critics are two sides of the same coin. Both treat the message and the messenger as if they're inseparable. His "progressive" critics act as though his misconduct delegitimates complementarianism. Yet when apologists like Gagnon and Geisler stick up for him, they, too, are acting as if the message and the messenger are inseparable, only they reject the characterization of the messenger. 

The fact that complementarianism is a hill to die on hardly makes Patterson a hill to die on, just because he's complementarian. Not to mention that he's detrimental to the cause. We shouldn't act as if these individuals are indispensable to the cause. By removing corrupt Christian leaders, that provides an opportunity for better leadership to take over. Patterson is far from irreplaceable. God isn't stuck with Patterson. We need to periodically cleanse the temple (as it were). We need to oust corrupt Christian leaders even when they back the right policies. We need to oust corrupt Christian leaders even if it hurts the cause in the short-term. It can't be moral blackmail where we support immoral Christian leaders in exchange for them supporting our agenda. That doesn't even work at a pragmatic level, because they discredit good policies by association. The positions become unfairly tainted if spearheaded by scoundrels. 

Patterson is like Marshal Pétain. Pétain was a WWI war hero who became a WWII war criminal. From patriot to Quisling.

Likewise, many people remember Patterson's role in helping to reverse the liberal drift in the SBC. But a good start doesn't mean you can't become a villain. 

And the fact that he spearheaded a worthy cause doesn't necessarily mean his motives were ever pure. He used that to march through the corridors of power. The noble cause and self-aggrandizement conveniently coincided. 

The Christian race is a marathon, not a sprint. What matters isn't how you begin or how you're doing on the backstretch, but whether you cross the finish line. 

All the Evidence Against Ergun Caner Compiled

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-ergun-caner-affair-one-collation-of.html

Sending soldiers to die for a lost cause

Robert McNamara

Robert S. McNamara could give duplicity a bad name. In his new memoir, In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam, he says that the Vietnam War was a mistake and that he knew it all along. We should have gotten out in 1963, when fewer than 100 Americans had been killed. When he and other US policymakers took us to war, they "had not truly investigated what was essentially at stake." 

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/1995/June%201995/0695edit.aspx

Barack Obama

In a new memoir, former defense secretary Robert Gates unleashes harsh judgments about President Obama’s leadership and his commitment to the Afghanistan war, writing that by early 2010 he had concluded the president “doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.” 

Leveling one of the more serious charges that a defense secretary could make against a commander in chief sending forces into combat, Gates asserts that Obama had more than doubts about the course he had charted in Afghanistan. The president was “skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail,” Gates writes in “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War.” 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/robert-gates-former-defense-secretary-offers-harsh-critique-of-obamas-leadership-in-duty/2014/01/07/6a6915b2-77cb-11e3-b1c5-739e63e9c9a7_print.html

Caner's guard dogs

I haven't posted a lot on the Caner affair. There are more important things in life. However, while reading a post at TFan's blog last night, I got drawn into an exchange with one of Caner's guard dogs. One wonders why some folks are so personally and emotionally invested in this man. Why they defend him at all costs. It's like a homosexual lover who flies into a rage whenever somebody slights his boyfriend.


steve said...
Tim G said...

"Are you saying that misspeaking is lying? If the intent was NOT to give false information and yet the information was false - it is lying or misspeaking."

There are things that a man can misstate, and things that he can't–especially when we're dealing, not with an isolated utterance, but a pattern.

Unless Caner is suffering from senile dementia, he can't repeatedly misstate where he was born, where he grew up, whether or not he trained to be a suicide bomber, &c.

Ironically, you're using a dishonest argument to defend a dishonest man.

"The problem in this scenario as you present it is that you have already determined the intent as if you knew and do know the heart. That is a huge issue in my book."

How is that a "huge issue"? By that standard, we could never convict a defiant defendant of a crime. As long as the accused pleaded innocent, we couldn't conclude that he was lying, despite compelling evidence to the contrary, unless we could read his mind.

Likewise, by your standard, it would be okay to let your cub scouts go camping with a Scout Leader who's a convicted pedophile, for as long as he denies the charge, it would be wrong to assume he's lying about his past.

The fact that you and others go to such lengths to defend Caner illustrates the fact that, for better or worse, fans and followers often take after their leaders or idols.

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010 2:41:00 AM
steve said...
Tim G said...

"He did not enhance his resume. He did not create anything that was not there."

In a fallen world, there's a symbiotic relationship between deceivers and self-deceivers. Tim graphically illustrates the Biblical truth that some men have an insatiable appetite for self-deception. They are what makes false teachers possible.

The fact that Tim calls himself a pastor and "church strategist" is a disgrace.

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010 2:46:00 AM


steve said...
Tim G said...

"For one to so do is to bear false witness."

By your standard, the allegation of perjury is self-refuting. By your standard, you can't rightly accuse someone of perjury unless you can read his mind. For he can't bear false witness unless he intends to bear false witness, and only God can discern his intentions.

Therefore, you just convicted yourself by your own rules of evidence.

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010 3:13:00 AM
steve said...
Tim G said...

"Geisler also points out that in the Swedish culture, the place of birth of one's father is considered to be the nationality of the children."

Even if that were true, Caner wasn't addressing Swedes, he was addressing Americans. That's not a cultural assumption in American society. And since Caner is thoroughly acculturated to American society, it would be duplicitous to say something that means one thing to the speaker, but something quite different to the target audience.

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010 3:17:00 AM


steve said...
Tim G said...

"For one to so do is to bear false witness."

It is pointless for you to quote provisions from the OT penal code when you smother the law code with your unscriptural standard of evidence. By your lights, an OT judge could never convict a defendant, for he could never infer criminal intent. In that event, the OT law code would be unenforceable. A dead letter from the time the ink was dry on the parchment.

People are entitled to a reasonable presumption of innocence, not a blanket presumption of innocence. People can nullify any presumption of innocence by guilty actions.

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010 3:39:00 AM
steve said...
Tim G said...

"Intent requires a clear thorough plan. None is there."

That's demonstrably false. For instance, a man can intend to commit a crime without having a "clear thorough plan." Many burglars are bunglers. They don't think ahead. They don't have contingency plans. They act on the spur of the moment. Doesn't mean they lack criminal intent.

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010 3:44:00 AM


steve said...
Tim G said...

"One more thing. I have no emotional tie. I am passionate about people destroying the character of others for the simple reason of some crazy theological agenda."

That seems to be a popular argument among Caner's fanboys. However, that argument obviously cuts both says. If Caner's opponents have a theological agenda, then, by converse logic, his supporters also have a theological agenda. So you discredit yourself in your effort to discredit others.

"I also think that one needs to realize that any preacher in America could be found guilty if all were held to the standard that Caner's critics are holding him to."

Well, you certainly have a low opinion of the Christian ministry. However, that explains a lot, for you're certainly living up to your low expectations.

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010 5:01:00 AM


steve said...
Tim G said...

"Your refusal to repent and your continued attacks towards me are telling of your arrogance and lack of spiritual guidance. "

In order to defend Caner you just stooped to smearing the entire Christian ministry by dragging everyone down to his level.

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010 5:10:00 AM

The Ergun Caner Debacle and the Gullibility of Evangelicals

Phil Johnson over at Pyromaniacs has written a timely piece on the Ergun Caner scandal titled, "Evangelical Bunko Artists: How I learned the Hard Way that Pious Gullibility is No Virtue."

Given what has occurred with the ongoing saga surrounding Dr. Ergun Caner, former president of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, I, as an elder of a small church in Greensboro, NC am weary of hearing about the lies and deception that occur in broader Evangelicalism. For the uninitiated, I'll recap Dr. Ergun Caner's scandal in one sentence: it involves fabricating an entire portion of his life that never happened and repeating that lie over and over and over again behind dozens of pulpits and in other apologetic contexts in order to give chutzpah to his current apologetic "ministry". Scandals, cover-ups, and perpetual liars like this are one of the many reasons why I and other pastors like me have no desire to be associated with present-day broader evangelicalism. Reformed and Sovereign Grace Baptists might be a small group, but at least we strive to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth and if we do have a habitual, unrepentant liar in our midst, we follow Scripture in dealing with him or her. But of course, disciplining unrepentant, habitual liars doesn't do well in building huge congregations; which explains why our churches typically average less than 100 congregants (including children and visitors) on any given Sunday. When you follow Biblical protocols for handling unrepentant sin, it doesn't leave much room in the congregation for professing Christians living in habitual, unrepentant sin.

As Johnson points out in his article, evangelicalism and fundamentalism has a sordid history of "snake oil peddlers" including Linda Davidson Stafford, John Todd, Mike Warnke, Alberto Rivera, Bob Larson, and Ted Haggard and even though these folks have been publicly discredited as deceivers, people still follow them. But why do people continue to follow them? 2 Timothy 4:3-4 answers this question:

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Timothy says that for whatever reason, some people want to turn aside to myth-makers because it fits with their own desires. Men that ought to know better will even go so far as to"exhonerate" liars and even post an endorsement sheet that further confirms the liar in his sin and undermines the credibility of the person(s) "exonerating" them. After all, if acclaimed apologists are willing to conveniently ignore critical information in order to protect a "brother's" reputation, yet they would be quick to condemn the same behavior in an opponent of Christianity and possibly even use it to further support their apologetic arguments against an unbeliever, why then should an unbeliever take seriously anything they have to say in defense of the faith?

I've seen this kind of thing many times while explaining the false prophecies of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society to a Jehovah's Witness. Many of them have admitted when showing them photocopies of their own documents that they have studied the same documents in their Kingdom Hall libraries. They come up with every rescuing device in the world to explain how such blatant false prophecies don't undermine "the organization". It's a shame when evangelical apologists do the same thing. We ought to do more for the truth than what the cults are willing to do for a lie.

Sadly, the gullible and self-deceived follow liars that arise "from among our own selves" (Acts 20:30) because they want the myth-makers to tell them something exciting, sensational, and mysterious, especially if the deceiver can play a tune on their heart strings. Worse, they'd rather have an unrepentant sinner for a spiritual leader rather than a godly man because the sinner makes them feel justified in their own sin. After all, if Ted Haggard can have a homosexual affair and he's been "exhonerated" in some sense, then why can't I? I'm sad to say that Ergun Caner is simply another snake-oil myth maker and people are buying and promoting his "goods" in spite of the fact that he has been publicly discredited.

In spite of the documented fabrication about his past Jihadi training as a child in his own words, Ergun Caner, has been "exhonerated" by the likes of apologists Dr. Norman Geisler and Dr. John Ankerberg even though he was asked to step down from his position as Dean of Liberty Seminary. I'm not up for crucifying anyone, but given his blatant lies, it is my opinion that Dr. Caner should have been fired on the spot and his church should publicly call for his repentance per Matthew 18:15-17. All Drs. Geisler and Ankerberg are doing is further confirming and enabling Caner in his sin and discrediting their own work by supporting an unrepentant liar.

With its emphasis on decisional regeneration combined with a shopping mall/market-driven pragmatism of "doing church", modern evangelicalism has created this mess because it has filled the pews and pulpits with false converts. Yes, I just clearly suggested what other men have been cautious to say, Dr. Ergun Caner's lack of repentance is the mark of a false convert. If any reader of this blog wants to challenge me on that statement, then go ahead. However, if you want to contend that he's a Christian brother given his perpetual lying combined with his lack of repentance in light of his unwillingness to answer clear, unambiguous questions that have been asked of him, then I leave you to your opinion. It's not as if he hasn't been given space to repent after the issues have been clearly laid out before him. So go ahead; defend the defenseless. And yes, I do hope that I'm wrong about Caner's spiritual condition. Believe me, I do not enjoy writing about such things; but given the current state of this scandal, what am I left to think, especially light of what God says about men that continually behave this way? (1 John 3:8-10)

So, when you see the debacles, scandals, scams, and snake-oil peddlers; just remember that pseudo-Christian cults aren't the only unpaid bills of the church.

Caner's consiglieri

"[TV host] John F. Ankerberg, who interviewed Caner for more than a dozen television programs, has posted on his website that he is disheartened by the attacks upon his friend's integrity and character. Ankerberg said he believes Caner's testimony is 'completely true.'" ---Christianity Today, posted 7/02/2010

" In a day of negativism and bad news, I am rejoicing today over many things. I rejoice over faithful witnesses of Jesus in a small Ohio Baptist church that loved two Moslem boys to Christ and then encouraged them to live for Jesus. I am grateful to God for the many people that have come to Christ through the witness of those two men. I continually thank God for His unbelievable plan to use sinners and mistake-prone men like the Caners, and even more amazing, people like me, to accomplish some things of great value in His kingdom business. Only eternity will reveal the good that two former Moslems have done. I thank God for them both."--- Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas

"I know Dr. Caner and have done a number of apologetics conferences with him, and have witnessed God using Ergun in a powerful way. He has always spoken words of grace to others, and I thus find it disturbing that some have chosen to show NO grace to Ergun in the midst of his current trial. If God only used perfect vessels, who among us would be qualified? I know of none. I urge all those who respect my work to take the word of someone who knows Ergun personally (me): He is a good man with a heart for God." ---Dr. Ron Rhodes, author and President of Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries

Apologist Dr. Norman Geisler declared: "We posted complete and detailed response to criticisms against Dr. Caner on our website (www.normgeisler.com)." He concluded that, "Having examined all these charges against Dr. Caner carefully and having looked at the related evidence, I can say without hesitation that all of the moral charges against Dr. Caner are unsubstantiated. Further, no one had demonstrated moral intent on any of the factual misstatements he made (which we all make)." He added, "Dr. Caner is a man of honesty, integrity, and loyalty to Christ."---Dr. Norman Geisler, author and Professor of Apologetics at Veritas Evangelical Seminary

"Dr. Geisler's response to the charges brought against Dr. Ergun Caner by some Muslims and other groups has hit the mark. The charges on the surface sounds formidable until they are met with TRUTH, then they quickly evaporate away losing all power to condemn – leaving the accusers to contemplate their actions. Dr. Geisler's responses serve to confirm what I had already known about Dr. Caner's sincere character and tireless efforts to reach the lost with the gospel and equip Christians to defend the faith in a hostile world. Dr. Geisler and Dr. Caner are the two spiritual warriors I would most like next to me in the trenches doing battle for the cause of Christ." ---Dr. Joseph Holden, President of Veritas Evangelical Seminary, Murrieta, CA

*"Tim Rogers of SBC Today (A Southern Baptist news organ), declared and defended his claim that Ergun Caner was "exonerated" of the charge against him by citing Merriam-Wesbsters definition "to clear from accusation or blame."

http://www.normangeisler.net/insupportofcaner.html